INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Case of Nocton V Lord Ashburton, House of Lords (1914) AC 932
It is an important English tort law case regarding professional negligence and conditions under which a person will be taken to have assumed responsibility for the welfare of another.
MATERIAL FACTS
In this case a solicitor, Mr. Nocton appealed after he was accused of fraud in the High Court.
Mr. Nocton had advised his client Lord Ashburton, who is the respondent, to release part of his mortgage so that he could acquire a property for 60,000 pounds. The property in question belonged to the appellant and the respondent’s brother.
ISSUES
Whether the advice was given in bad faith.
Whether the advice was given negligently.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES
The appellant, Nocton, argued that
The respondent, lord Ashburton, argued that his solicitor adviced him
DECISIONS OF THE COURT
The High Court had dismissed the claim of negligence against Nocton that was made by Lord Ashburton on the grounds that he failed to prove to the court that the solicitor had acted dishonestly.
In the Court of Appeal, the decision of the High court was revised. They decided that although Lord Ashburton could not provide evidence to support his claim, Nocton was found guilty of breach of his fiduciary duties towards his client.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Wide
Liability for breach of fiduciary duty is not dependant on proof of deceit or negligence. Equity imposes duties in special relationships above and beyond the minimal duties to be honest and to be careful. Fiduciary duties rest on the ideas of trust and of conducts offensive to conscience.
The equitable remedies available for breach of fiduciary duty are more elastic than the sanction of damages attached to common law fraud and negligence.
Narrow
A solicitor stands in a fiduciary relationship with his client. A solicitor who enters in a financial transaction with his client is under a fiduciary duty, when advising his client to make full disclosure of all relevant facts known
Case of Nocton V Lord Ashburton, House of Lords (1914) AC 932
It is an important English tort law case regarding professional negligence and conditions under which a person will be taken to have assumed responsibility for the welfare of another.
MATERIAL FACTS
In this case a solicitor, Mr. Nocton appealed after he was accused of fraud in the High Court.
Mr. Nocton had advised his client Lord Ashburton, who is the respondent, to release part of his mortgage so that he could acquire a property for 60,000 pounds. The property in question belonged to the appellant and the respondent’s brother.
ISSUES
Whether the advice was given in bad faith.
Whether the advice was given negligently.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES
The appellant, Nocton, argued that
The respondent, lord Ashburton, argued that his solicitor adviced him
DECISIONS OF THE COURT
The High Court had dismissed the claim of negligence against Nocton that was made by Lord Ashburton on the grounds that he failed to prove to the court that the solicitor had acted dishonestly.
In the Court of Appeal, the decision of the High court was revised. They decided that although Lord Ashburton could not provide evidence to support his claim, Nocton was found guilty of breach of his fiduciary duties towards his client.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Wide
Liability for breach of fiduciary duty is not dependant on proof of deceit or negligence. Equity imposes duties in special relationships above and beyond the minimal duties to be honest and to be careful. Fiduciary duties rest on the ideas of trust and of conducts offensive to conscience.
The equitable remedies available for breach of fiduciary duty are more elastic than the sanction of damages attached to common law fraud and negligence.
Narrow
A solicitor stands in a fiduciary relationship with his client. A solicitor who enters in a financial transaction with his client is under a fiduciary duty, when advising his client to make full disclosure of all relevant facts known